Europe's Jihad against Israel

Resolution 2334 was as sickening a surrender to the Arab-Muslim jihad in the name of "peace," as was the surrender of UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to Adolf Hitler at Munich in September 1938.

The UN before 1967 did not refer to the West Bank and Gaza as "occupied" territories when they were "occupied" by Egypt and Jordan after the 1948-49 war, which the Arab states launched against Israel. The Arab states then were the "occupiers" of parts of Palestine west of Jordan until 1967, and rejected any notion of Jews having a historic connection with Palestine, which they claimed was an integral part of Arab lands.

From the time of the Balfour Declaration and the League's Mandate for Palestine until the UN Resolution 181 (1947), reference to Palestine meant land with historic connection to the Jewish people. It was on this basis that the Jews' (Zionist) claim to reconstitute their national home was given legal recognition by the League, which the UN, as its successor, was legally bound to protect.

From the Arab perspective of religion and politics there never was a "Palestinian" people, or nation, distinct and separate from Arabs as a people or nation. The jihad called by the Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini against Jews in Palestine after 1921 was in the name of "Arabs" and Islam, and it has so remained since. According to the Hamas charter, "the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Trust] upon all Muslim generations till the day of Resurrection."

Jerusalem, its principal city, was built by King David, a Jew, some ten centuries earlier.

For the past nine decades and more, however, Arabs and Muslims, with 56 Muslim states in the OIC, have been waging jihad to destroy the one and only state of the Jews. And Christendom, as if oblivious of its own shameful past history of anti-Semitism, has even more shamefully supported the falsification of history. Now, with Security Council Resolution 2334, the UN, with the enthusiastic the backing of Europeans and the prodding of U.S. President Barack Obama, is complicit in this jihad against Israel.

UN Security Council Resolution 2334, adopted as a result of the United States abstention, on the instructions of outgoing President Barack Obama, confirmed the historic bigotry against Jews and Israel entrenched within the United Nations, just as it was within its predecessor, the League of Nations. As previously indicated, Arab and Muslim states could not move a single anti-Israel resolution in the Security Council without the complicity of the Western powers, representing the historically Christian nations.

The collusion of the Western powers and the Islamic countries against Jews and Israel is now ostentatious, without any subterfuge. Resolution 2334 was as sickening a surrender to the Arab-Muslim jihad in the name of "peace," as was the surrender of UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to the Adolf Hitler at Munich in September 1938.

The gathering in Paris on January 15, at the invitation of French President François Hollande, was further evidence of appeasing the Arab-Muslim world's jihad against Israel.

The timing of the Paris gathering – five days short of the 75th anniversary of the notorious Wannsee Conference of 20 January 1942, held in the suburbs of Berlin, in which top-ranking Nazi officials finalized the preparation for the "Final solution to the Jewish problem" in Europe – could not have been more overtly insulting to Israel. Members of the European Union plotted shafting the Jewish state in accordance with the wishes of their Arab and Muslim friends of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – 56 Muslim states, plus "Palestine," and the biggest bloc at the UN.

"Fake news" and writing "fake" history have long been the modus operandi of tyrants; nothing new. The "big lie," repeatedly broadcast so that people might succumb to believing it, was an art that Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's minister for propaganda, practiced to devastating results. The most notorious Arab ally of Hitler, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, as an admiring student of Goebbels, passed on the art of "fake" history and "big lie" to his allies.

It is grotesque and criminal that the EU and the UN, together in "ganging up," insist that Israel comply with their resolutions – Israeli withdrawal to pre-June 1967 boundaries – without having shown any attempt to have the "Palestinians" of the so-called "occupied territories" end their jihadi terrorism.

It was not an oversight in the Security Council Resolution 242 of November 22, 1967 that there was no mention of "Palestinian" people, or "Palestinian Arabs," or "Palestinians."

In the decades after the passage of Res. 242, there was a systematic push by the OIC states in the UN, supported by the EU and its predecessor, the European Community (EC), to refer to disputed territories taken by Israel in a defensive war initiated by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan as "occupied" territories. The Egyptians had closed the Strait of Tiran at the mouth of the Red Sea, an act that was a casus belli, legal cause for war.

The UN, before 1967, did not refer to the West Bank and Gaza as "occupied" territories when they were "occupied" by Egypt and Jordan after the 1948-49 war, which the Arab states launched against Israel. The Arab states then were the "occupiers" of parts of Palestine west of Jordan until 1967, and rejected any notion of Jews having a historic connection with Palestine, which they claimed was an integral part of Arab lands.

The entire jihad of Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini, and since, is based on the argument that Jews have no historic rights.

From the Arab perspective of religion and politics, there never was a "Palestinian" people, or nation, distinct and separate from Arabs as a people or nation. The jihad called by Husseini against Jews in Palestine after 1921 was in the name of "Arabs" and Islam, and it has so remained since. According to the Hamas charter, "the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Trust] upon all Muslim generations till the day of Resurrection" (Article 11).

Hence, that there ever had been a "Palestinian people" was a "big lie," pushed by Arab states after 1967, and that the Western nations unquestioningly swallowed.

"Palaestina" – in a still earlier effort to strip the area of its Jewish roots, this time by the ancient Romans – was the name the Emperor Hadrian gave to territory on both sides of the River Jordan – Judea and Samaria – after crushing the Jews in the Bar Kokhba Rebellion in 135 CE.

Jerusalem, its principal city, was built by King David, a Jew, some ten centuries earlier.

In the seventh century CE, Arabs seized "Palestine" from the Christian Byzantine Empire and it became part of the Arab, later Ottoman Empire.

The Crusaders conquered Jerusalem in 1099 during the First Crusade, and subsequently the surrounding area, to establish the Kingdom of Jerusalem in the twelfth century. Arab armies evicted the Crusaders from Palestine at the end of the thirteenth century. For the next six centuries, in the name of Islam Arabs, then Turks under the Ottoman Empire, ruled over Palestine until 1917, when the British Expeditionary Forces arrived during World War I.

The defeat of the Ottoman Empire left its former Arab territories between Egypt and the Persian Gulf, including Palestine, under the control of the victorious Allied Powers, Britain and France. In the Balfour Declaration of 2 November 1917, the British government committed itself to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people," while noting that this should not "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities" therein.

At the San Remo Conference of April 1920, the Allied Powers agreed that Britain, under the authority of the League of Nations, would be the Mandatory Power over Palestine. The League officially handed the Mandate for Palestine to Britain as a trust in London on 24 July 1922.

The Balfour Declaration was incorporated into the Palestine Mandate; the twenty-eight articles of the Mandate stipulated how Palestine would be governed until, as everyone understood, the Jews were capable of "reconstituting their [Jewish] national home" – meaning the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. There was no mention of a "Palestinian" people in the Balfour Declaration or in the Palestine Mandate, since speaking about Palestine primarily meant everyone there. Everyone born there at the time – Jews, Muslims and Christians – were Palestinians; that was what was stamped on everyone's passport.

From the time of the Balfour Declaration and the League's Mandate for Palestine until the UN Resolution 181 (1947), reference to "Palestine" meant land with a historic connection to the Jewish people. It was on this basis that the Jews' (Zionist) claim to reconstitute their national home was given legal recognition by the League, which the UN, as its successor, was legally bound to protect.

Britain's record as the Mandatory Power in Palestine between the two world wars was nothing short of shameful. British administrators of the Colonial Office, sent to Palestine, devised policies limiting Jewish immigration and favoring Arabs, as the first of a series of decisions that undermined the primary objective solemnly pledged in the Balfour Declaration and incorporated into the Mandate.

The subversion began with Sir Herbert Samuel, an English Jew, appointed the High Commissioner for Palestine in 1920, after the San Remo Conference. As the author William B. Ziff, documents in The Rape of Palestine – published in 1938 to the consternation of the British – Britain's "stiffing" of Jews under the specious policy of treating the demands of both Jews and Arabs "equally" was in effect deliberately prejudicial against Jews.

The British historian of the Middle East, Elie Kedourie, born in Baghdad, Iraq, also documented in The Chatham House Version (1970), how Samuel's policy, designed to conciliate Arabs, increasingly hurt Jews. Similarly, Pierre Van Paassen, a Dutch-American Unitarian minister, documented in The Forgotten Ally, (1943), the "stiffing" of Jews in Europe by the Western nations, and especially Britain as the Mandatory power in Palestine.

Britain's perfidy over Palestine took root with the election in 1921 of a known felon, Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, a younger brother of the deceased Mufti (religious head) and known to be a rabble-rouser, as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

Husseini, despite the notoriety surrounding him, was the preferred candidate of Samuel for the position. The Grand Mufti, when World War II began, enthusiastically embraced the Third Reich, Hitler and his "Final Solution" for the Jews, and found his way to Nazi Berlin.

The poisonousness of Samuel's choice of Amin al-Husseini as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, however, was exceeded by his role in creating the Emirate of Transjordan (present-day Kingdom of Jordan) at the expense of the Palestine Mandate. This was done at the behest of the Colonial Office under Winston Churchill, reputedly the most ardent English friend and supporter of Zionists, to appease Arabs.

In 1922, the chunk of Palestine east of the River Jordan, amounting to about two-thirds of the Mandated territory, was sliced off and gifted to Abdullah, son of Sharif Hussein of Hejaz, under whose name the flag of the 1916 "Arab Revolt" against Ottoman rule was raised.

After the 1922 partition of Palestine, which gave most of the land promised to the Jews to Transjordan, the substantially reduced Mandated territory remained only west of the River Jordan. Transjordan, as an Arab state, became closed to Jewish immigration.

Consequently, the policy of allowing Jewish immigration, according to the formula of "absorptive capacity" adopted during Samuel's tenure in Palestine, turned increasingly restrictive. Arab opposition, with incitement to violence against Jews by the Mufti and his supporters, escalated, and Britain's appeasement of the Arabs became routine.

The sordid legacy of Britain, as the Mandatory authority in Palestine, was the restriction of Jewish immigration from Europe when it turned out to be most urgently needed. As the desperation of European Jewry mounted after Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, the response of the Western powers was completely to deny entrance to Jewish refugees who had started fleeing the Nazis.

Finally, a meeting of the Western nations to consider the Jewish plight was called at the initiative of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt. Thirty-eight countries attended this meeting in July 1938, known as the Evian Conference, held in France.

The Evian Conference was doomed even before it convened. Among the countries attending, not one – not even Canada, Argentina or Australia, with vast open spaces – was prepared to accept Jewish refugees from Austria and Germany. Even worse, the United States and Britain refused to open their doors to Jewish refugees from Hitler, while at the same time Britain also prohibited Jews from entering Palestine.

The Evian Conference was the last gasp of Western powers to lend assistance to a people threatened with extinction by their enemies. The spectacle of the Evian Conference as a charade, according to the historian Robert Wistrich, could only have firmed the resolve of Hitler to proceed with his plans for the "Final Solution." In his book, Hitler and the Holocaust, Wistrich wrote:

"If Nazi Germany could no longer expect to export, sell, or expel its Jews to an indifferent world that plainly did not want them, then perhaps they would have to do something even more drastic."

After the defeat of the Nazis, and after their crimes against Jews were no longer disputed or hidden, the Western powers, through the UN, could have established Israel, as justice demanded, in what was left of the Palestine Mandate on the entire territory west of the River Jordan.

But the subsequent history of Palestine, approached by the Western powers with a second partition under the UN resolution of November 1947, turned out predictably as sordid as that of the Mandate under Britain's supervision during the period 1922-48.

The Arab states, in failing to achieve their objective of defeating Israel during the 1948-67 period, adopted the unconventional means of jihadi terrorism backed by the repeated broadcast of the "big lie" that the Western nations, or Christendom, willfully accepted. The "big lie" is that the "Palestinians," as a people under a supposed "occupation" by Israel – to which the Arabs had agreed in the Oslo II Accord (section: Land) – deserve a state of their own.

The state for the "Palestinian" people (Muslims and Christians) in two-thirds of Palestine was created arbitrarily by Britain in creating Transjordan in 1922. The "two-state" solution in Palestine therefore has been in existence for the past ninety-five years.

For the past nine decades and more, however, Arabs and Muslims, with 56 Muslim states in the OIC, have been waging jihad to destroy the one and only state of the Jews. And Christendom, as if oblivious of its own shameful past history of anti-Semitism, has even more shamefully supported the falsification of history. The first time it was done by UNESCO, in calling ancient Biblical sites (including Jerusalem) Islamic, when Islam did not even exist at the time.

Salim Mansur is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute. He teaches in the department of political science at Western University in London, Ontario. He is the author of "Islam's Predicament: Perspectives of a Dissident Muslim" and "Delectable Lie: A Liberal Repudiation of Multiculturalism."

Comment on this item

Name:

Email Address:

Comments:

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Gatestone Institute greatly appreciates your comments. The editors reserve the right, however, not to publish comments containing: incitement to violence, profanity, or any broad-brush slurring of any race, ethnic group or religion. Gatestone also reserves the right to edit comments for length, clarity and grammar. All thoughtful suggestions and analyses will be gratefully considered. Commenters' email addresses will not be displayed publicly. Gatestone regrets that, because of the increasingly great volume of traffic, we are not able to publish them all.

14 Reader Comments

LTC A. Joseph Albert, USA-ret • Jan 20, 2017 at 20:50

This analysis of the latest action by the UN as well as members of the European community led by France in conjunction with the OIC was extremely informative and I believe correct. Although there is a "new sheriff in town" (the 45th POTUS, Donald J. Trump) the progress made by the "PLO" is not going to be automatically undone. The Palestinian hope for both the eradication of Israel as a Jewish State as well as the creation of a "true" Palestinian state is simply not going to happen because it is promoted & proclaimed. The world will soon recognize that the US is no longer going to play 2nd fiddle as a world player & leader. I believe the "leaders" representing the Palestinian side will soon sit down with Israeli representatives and talk serious and perhaps for the first time sincerely over issues with "Uncle Sam" sitting at the table with the "personal" representative of the POTUS letting his presence be known....

Reply->

Keith Cashman • Jan 20, 2017 at 15:51

Both the UN and EU are dictatorships that take a parental view of countries who have been foolish enough (with hind site) to become associated with these organisations.An adult and mature organisation would not interfere with developed countries and in a lot of cases under developed countries to the detriment of the countries people.
Rather than continuing a relationship with these organisations, who incidentally absorb money like it was going out of fashion, support and cooperation needs to be stopped.Israel needs to take over the disputed territories and bring about a halt to the continued conflict in that area that is being brought about by Islam (the UN).Islam has now created such world wide disorder that countries are now busy trying to deal with this rebellious organisation by remaining passive. Until someone takes an iron fist to Islam there will be no world peace but rather another major war and civil disobedience is imminent.

Reply->

Sarony • Jan 20, 2017 at 13:45

I would like to put another perspective on the Chamberlain 'surrender'. The military knew in 1938 that a second war with Germany was inevitable. The UK was so bereft of armaments that the ancient cannon at the Tower of London were included in the inventory of hardware, according to my father who served at the War Office at the time. Chamberlain might well have been naive, but those extra months before war was declared on Germany gave the UK vital time to go into overdrive building up its firepower, not least in the production of fighter and bomber aircraft.

Reply->

Ray Adams • Jan 20, 2017 at 12:00

Thank you, Salim Mansur! The antidote to those who would rewrite history to falsify its reality, is a clear declaration of the historical events. You have provided such an excellent timeline to that end. Thank you.

To my mind, the repetition of these historical truths is the most powerful structural solution to remedy the prevalent distortion of reality taking place in Arab/Muslim rhetoric. I appreciate reading about what is now taking place. But that report of daily incongruities desperately needs this foundation of historical reality if it is to have the powerful impact it deserves. Again, thank you.

Reply->

Thomas Hennigan • Jan 20, 2017 at 11:18

Thanks for this excellent article. These truths need to be spread abroad in order to overcome the great lie being propagated.

One correction: According to 2 Samuel 5,6-12, King David did not build Jerusalem, but conquered it from the Jebusites.

As for Christianity, the attempt at handing over the older part of Jerusalem to Islamic jihadis is absurd, as Jerusalem is holy to Christians also, not only because Jesus was crucified, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, as well as the Church being founded there at Pentecost. See the first chapters of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, but also the Jewish Biblical history is also Christian history. If the jihadis ever achieve control over Jerusalem, it would be a disaster for Christianity. It seems that European politicians and many of their American counterparts are ignorant of real history, which has nothing to do with the Islamic fantasy of Muhammad going there on a flying horse and based on this lie, Islam attempts to make Jerusalem sacred city of Islam.

Reply->

Frank J. Verderber • Jan 20, 2017 at 11:12

Salim Mansur's article catches succinctly, the history of the Israeli predicament. Previously, Prof. Carroll Quigley [circa 1960] wrote the expose' "The Anglo-American Establishment." The book follows the progress of the New World Order [aka; The Commonwealth Nations / aka; The British Empire] in formulating a world trust and developing the Middle East as a new Dominion. Quigley did a good job exposing the British contempt for Ashkenazim Jews, and their love of the Arabs. The Crown purposed the Jews as money rollers, who would invest in the Palestinian region and hopefully get along with what the Brits called related cultures. The British soon found that the Muslim culture wanted the Jewish money, but didn't want their persons. My best to Mr. Mansur - a nice piece of journalism.

Reply->

Phil Copson • Jan 20, 2017 at 09:39

Salim - thank you for this very informative and sobering article which I shall circulate in the hopes that I can encourage the recipients to make representations to our elected representatives.

One minor point is that a crucial difference between Chamberlain in '38 and those involved today in the passing of Resolution 2334 - "...as sickening a surrender to the Arab-Muslim jihad in the name of "peace," as was the surrender of UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to Adolf Hitler at Munich in September 1938." - is that Chamberlain was not a supporter of Hitler, knew full well the dangers of Nazism, and used the respite between Czechoslovakia in September '38 and Poland in September '39 to crack on with a rearmament programme, then declared war.

I'd love to be proved wrong, but I don't think that the supporters of Resolution 2334 are intent upon military intervention in support of Israel any time soon....

Reply->

David Goldenberg • Jan 20, 2017 at 09:08

Fantastic article deserving of widespread circulation (beyond Gatestone).Interesting comment that (Trans) Jordan is the natural home of the Palestinians. Yet Jordan doesn't want any Palestinians.The whole issue is a manufactured, politicized one. No surprise that the failed politicizer President Obama would put his two Marxist cents in.To be calling Palestinians 'refugees' after 68 years is absurd. Not to mention the other refugee problem (never mentioned) of the 850,000 Jews ejected from Arab states at a cost to those Jews of 320 billion dollars.

Reply->

jeb • Jan 20, 2017 at 08:15

I recently watched a video that has in it a photograph of a sign forbidding any Israeli from entering Area A, which is under PA control.what is clear is that history is on the side of Jews, and constantly proves Jews have had a connection to the land.What liberals and old school communist/socialists deny is that connection has religious relevance. It is that aspect they are in fact renunciation because it is heresy, both to Islam and to advocates of state atheism, aka your friendly neighborhood socialist. Putin is a heretic on two counts, he renounced communism and he embraced the Russian Orthodox church which had certain rights in Jerusalem that have also been erased.I am coming to believe that its not the pure history per se of the Jewish people these two anti groups pose humanity, it is the heresy of their belief.This realization gelled in my mind one day when I was speaking to a Catholic Priest who grew up in Guinea, when Taure was the mad man running the country. He told me the Jesus of the Bible is the same as the Jesus of the Koran. That we all believe the same thing, Jew, Muslim and Jew. But that is a lie. We may all believe Jesus was a good man or Rabbi but our beliefs in who he was are separated by major conflicting beliefs. That is what makes tolerance a necessity. Jews believe Jesus died on the cross end of story. Christians believe Jesus died n the cross, was buried, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven in fact God incarnate, he will stand with the Father when humanity is judged. Muslims believe and under sharia and blasphemy laws enforce the nullification of Jewish and Christian belief is intolerant of them and will enforce their belief on pain of death to all others. That belief is that Jesus ascended from the cross to Allah where he will come again leading the armies of God. The Priest grew up in a Muslim nation his beliefs are loosely characterized as marginal or nominal Christianity more of a humanist friendly, socialism and submissive to Islam.It isn't history the Muslim supremacists oppose it is the advocation of history that allows Jewish and Christian beliefs that they respond to violently. And the neutered "humanists" who are not invested in belief fail to recognize this threat to humanity because they have a naive realism of how peace and a fair world can be achieved. Essentially when trust them we are trusting fools.

Reply->

Denis MacEoin jeb • Jan 23, 2017 at 11:13

Jeb says 'That belief [i.e. Muslim belief] is that Jesus ascended from the cross to Allah where he will come again leading the armies of God.' That is not true. The Qur'an is explicit in saying Jesus was not crucified but that it was made to look as if he had been but that someone else was crucified in his place. Later belief (not based on the Qur'an) states that Jesus (who died like all other prophets, including Muhammad) will precede the Mahdi (either the Sunni Mahdi or the Shi'i Twelfth Imam) in the final battle against unbelief.

Reply->

Jeff Page • Jan 20, 2017 at 07:50

Let's get one thing abundantly clear! The decisions being made by European politicians do not represent the European people! Most Europeans can see the benefit of Israel and the terrible consequences of the politicians supporting Islamists. Who in their right mind is looking forward to being taken over by Muslims and ruled under Sharia? The bets are that they number very, very few!The fools in power seem to consider Muslims to be no threat to Western society and they couldn't be more wrong. It's wishful thinking to live their lives believing that Muslims will ever become a part of Western society and live by it's rules and alongside it's culture without any friction.There is no excuse whatsoever for naivety. This campaign against Israel needs to stop and Western politicians need to wake up and see just what the Muslim world is doing. No good will come of this. Israel is a friend of the West, Islam is not!

Reply->

Albert Reingewirtz • Jan 20, 2017 at 07:25

This is the first time I read in one article the whole shameful anti- Semitism that is the integral part of the history of the Jewish state of Israel. Britain, the USA, Canada owe to atone for their crime against the Jewish nation while the Shoa was exterminating us in an industrial fashion. UPS would have been proud of having invented the efficient shipping of Jews from all over Europe to extermination camps. The Goebbels method is still in full force at the UN. President Trump moving the US embassy to Yeroushalaiim will be like the Dutch boy saving everybody with his finger in the dam.

Reply->

Peter D Gardner • Jan 20, 2017 at 07:01

What became Saudi Arabia was not part of the mandates after WW1. It had been party to British resistance to the Turks and the formation of Arab nationhood. Also Hussein (from Jeddah) was key to the initial concept of Jewish settlement in return for supporting (leading?) the economic development of the Arab lands in which the Jews would settle.

Reply->

Yael Schlichting • Jan 20, 2017 at 06:53

The Europeans just showed to the world, that they didn't change and when you take a look into the history of European/Arab relations of the last 45 years, you see that it takes an almost direct way from the Munich massacre to the Israeli olympic team in 1972 to the UN-resolution 2334.Europeans now dare to come out of the closet. They found rhetoric figures that look nice but are just as anti-semitic as the Europeans always were and then look back at the photo you included in this article, showing Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini together with Adolf Hitler.One more hint: The National-Socialists were socialists - they were left!